Civil cases in China are subject to the system of second instance, which means that the civil judgment made by the court becomes legally effective after the first and second instance. If the party concerned does not take the initiative to fulfill the obligations determined by the civil judgment, the case will enter into the execution procedure, and the people's court will enforce the execution.
Usually, after the first and second trial court civil cases, there will always be a party to the retrial court retrial request, but most of the request will be the retrial court court rejected the case, really into the trial supervision procedures to re-examine the case, according to incomplete statistics not more than 5%, and the retrial court to completely change the sentence of the case is even more rare.
Recently, Beijing King&Capital law firm XiaoYongCheng lawyers represent a dispute over the sale of goods retrial case by the beijing high court people's court, the beijing high court trial supervision division revoked the beijing district people's court of the first instance and beijing intermediate people's civil judgment of the second instance. Mr. Xiao Yongcheng's representation work has saved nearly one million yuan of economic losses for the client, and won the client's praise.
Brief description of the case
Beijing X Company and Yunnan Y Company are long-term partners. Beijing X Company mainly produces rainwater collection and discharge equipment, Yunnan Y Company is Beijing X Company's purchaser, and agent. Over the years, the parties have worked together to supply equipment and provide services to Yunnan's water conservation and drainage projects.
In March 2013, the two parties conducted an accounting of the past cooperation projects and signed a Reconciliation Statement. The statement records the cooperation between the two parties in recent years, and there are columns such as "shipment of goods", "settlement of payment", "invoice amount", and "project name" on the statement. Project Name".
The statement shows that as of January 21, 2013, Yunnan Y Company owed Beijing X Company a total of RMB 1268,225.80 in payment for goods.
In April 2018, Beijing X Company filed a lawsuit with a district people's court in Beijing, requesting Yunnan Y Company to repay the outstanding payment of RMB 1268,225.80 and assume the corresponding civil liability.
In the course of the first trial, Yunnan Y Company submitted to the court a payment voucher of 1.2 million yuan to prove that it had repaid more than 1.2 million yuan of the amount recorded in the statement.
Beijing X Company admitted that it had received the payment, but Beijing Company emphasized that it had shipped 1.2 million yuan of goods to Yunnan Y Company, and that the shipment of the goods corresponded to the items "Item Name" and "Invoice Amount" in the Reconciliation Statement, and that the 1.2 million yuan paid by Yunnan Y Company was not the amount stated in the Reconciliation Statement. The 1.2 million RMB paid by Yunnan Y is not the outstanding amount identified in the Statement.
In order to prove that it had delivered the goods, Beijing X submitted to the Court its own "Notice of Stock Preparation" and "Notice of Delivery", as well as invoices and other documents. Beijing X recounted that the goods it delivered were "PP modules of RMB 658,240 for a cigarette factory's rainwater collection project" and "modules of RMB 263,960 for a rainwater collection project in a neighborhood in Kunming" under the "Name of Project" item of the Statement. Modules valued at RMB 263,960 for a rainwater collection project in a neighborhood in Kunming" under "Project Name", as well as other goods, totaling RMB 1.2 million.
In this regard, Yunnan Y explained to the Court of First Instance that although the goods worth RMB 658,240 were recorded in the "Invoice Amount" and "Project Name" of the "Statement" of the two parties, Beijing had not actually shipped the goods, and the "Statement" of "Shipment of Goods" had not been issued. However, Beijing did not actually ship the goods, and the "Statement of Accounts" did not record the shipment in the "Goods Shipped" column. At the same time, the "Statement" has recorded that Beijing Company has shipped a total of 680,000 yuan of goods for the project on six occasions, and it is impossible for Beijing Company to ship more than 650,000 yuan of the same kind of goods.
As to the PP modules required for the "Kunming Sub-district Project", Yunnan Y argued that although the 263,960 RMB PP modules were recorded in the "Invoice Amount" and "Project Name" of the "Statement" between the two parties, they were not recorded in the "Invoice Amount" and "Project Name". Although the PP module of RMB 263,960 was recorded in the "Invoice Amount" and "Project Name" of the "Statement" between the two parties, Beijing X Company did not supply the module, and Beijing Company only supplied equipment such as "rainwater wells" and "rainwater outlets" valued at tens of thousands of dollars.
As to the other projects described by Beijing X, Yunnan Y argued that there was no supply and no outstanding payment.
Yunnan Company Y emphasized in court that if Beijing Company X insisted on shipping the goods worth 1.2 million yuan, Beijing Company should submit to the court the documents of shipment of the goods, or the documents of acceptance and signing of receipt of the goods. The "Notice of Stock Preparation" and "Notice of Dispatch" submitted by Beijing X did not prove that the goods had actually been dispatched.
Regarding the dispute between the parties, the Court of First Instance concluded that the Statement of Account signed in March 2013 was made by Yunnan Y Company, which had confirmed the accounting status of the Statement of Account. The "goods of RMB 658,240 under a cigarette factory" and the "goods of RMB 263,960 under a district in Kunming" mentioned by Beijing X Company had been listed in the "Invoice Amount" and "Item Amount" of the "Statement" of both parties. ", "Project Name" has been recorded under the "Statement", and the "Statement" "payment settlement" column has not been recorded under the settlement. It should be concluded that Beijing X Company shipped PP module goods valued at RMB 658,240 and RMB 263,960 respectively for a cigarette factory project and a community project in Kunming served by Yunnan Y Company.
As to the other amounts owed by Beijing X, the Court of First Instance held that since the corresponding amounts had already been settled under "Settlement of payment for goods" in the Statement, the other amounts owed by Yunnan Company were not established.
Finally, the Court of First Instance ruled that Yunnan Company Y should pay the above payment of RMB922,200 to Beijing Company X and bear the corresponding responsibility.
After the judgment of the court of first instance, Yunnan Y Company appealed to an intermediate court in Beijing, but the Beijing Intermediate Court also rejected Yunnan Company's appeal on the same grounds.
Under such circumstances, Yunnan Y Company then commissioned Mr. Xiao Yongcheng, a lawyer from Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, to represent it to the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court for a retrial.
Finding out the facts
After accepting the commission, Mr. Xiao Yongcheng carefully read all the materials of Yunnan Y Company. Xiao Yongcheng lawyers think, if still in accordance with the first and second instance during the Beijing X company did not have the goods shipment and delivery certificate, and the first and second instance court found the facts are not clear reason to file a retrial, the Beijing high court is likely to still reject yunnan Y company's request.
The focus of the dispute between the two parties was whether PP modules worth RMB 658,240 were supplied for the "rainwater collection project of a cigarette factory" and whether modules worth RMB 263,960 were supplied for the "rainwater collection project of a neighborhood in Kunming". However, due to the problems in the statement of account for the above two items, it is easy to understand that the goods have been shipped. Xiao Yongcheng lawyer suggested, do not be too much on the "statement" literal expression to explore and analyze, should be directly from the two projects itself to find a breakthrough, understand and verify the entire implementation of the two projects, to see if we can find the "statement" is not documented, or with the "statement" contradictory, but enough to overturn the original first and second trial verdict of new evidence.
However, Yunnan Y Company was not the constructor of the two projects mentioned above, and Yunnan Company only provided the relevant goods for the projects. Yunnan Company did not know the specific content and detailed process of the project. For this reason, Xiao Yongcheng lawyers before and after two local Yunnan, to understand the specific circumstances of the project.
After Xiao Yongcheng lawyer investigation and verification, "a cigarette factory rainwater collection project" is a local group company for the construction of the subordinate cigarette factory rainwater collection project and the implementation of a bidding project. 2010 October, a group of companies on sale to the outside world bidding documents, one of the bidding project for the construction of a 300 cubic meters of the "reservoir". One of the components of the tender was the construction of a 300 cubic meter "cistern" and the provision of PP modules for the "cistern".
In July 2011, a local construction engineering company won the tender and entered into a Construction Contract with a group company. Regarding the supply of PP modules for the cistern, the construction engineering company signed a Supply Contract with Yunnan Y Company, agreeing that Yunnan Y Company would supply 300 cubic meters of PP modules for the cistern.
However, the judgment of the court of first and second instance held that in December 2010, Beijing X Company separately shipped a batch of 300 cubic meters of PP modules for the rainwater collection project of a cigarette factory in Yunnan. However, according to the Record Sheet, Beijing had shipped the PP modules for the project six times. If Beijing had shipped another separate shipment, then Beijing would have shipped a total of 600 cubic meters of PP modules.
However, according to the project's Bidding Documents, the signed Construction Contract, and the Supply Contract, the project only required 300 cubic meters of PP modules, so how could Beijing ship two batches totaling 600 cubic meters?
In addition, in December 2010, the project was in the stage of bid evaluation, and the winning bidder was only determined in June 2011, and the Supply Contract was only signed in July 2011, so how could Beijing X Company have shipped the goods in December 2010, before the implementation of the project? What was the basis for the shipment of the goods? Who was the recipient?
Obviously, the court of first and second instance found that the time and quantity of the goods supplied differed greatly from the real situation of the project.
For the court of first and second instance, "a district rainwater collection project in Kunming" 263,960 yuan of supply, Xiao Yongcheng lawyers also carried out the necessary verification.
According to the relevant provisions of the local government, kunming city address community rainwater collection project is completed, must be planned by the kunming city water conservation office review and acceptance, kunming water conservation office to save the project acceptance of the whole information. In this regard, Xiao Yongcheng lawyers applied for access to the Kunming Water Conservation Office of the relevant archives, Xiao Yongcheng lawyers were surprised to find that Kunming, a small community required PP module goods are not supplied by Beijing X company, but a company in Shenzhen to provide. In addition, the dossier confirmed that the number of PP modules required for the project was 130 cubic meters, not 203.6 cubic meters as determined by the court judgment.
The dossier also showed that the start date of the project was May 2013 and the completion date was November 2013. However, the court of first and second instance ruled that in December 2010, Beijing X shipped 203.6 m3. How could Beijing ship 203.6 m3 of PP modules for the community's ancillary equipment when the community's construction project did not even exist in December 2010? Obviously, the court of first and second instance's determination of the facts of the case was not in line with the real situation of the project.
In this regard, Mr. Xiao Yongcheng organized the materials verified by the investigation and submitted them to the Beijing High Court as new evidence, which was sufficient to overturn the judgments of the first and second trials.
Result of the case
After accepting the case, the Trial Supervision Division of the Beijing High Court held four hearings and examined the new evidence provided by Mr. Xiao Yongcheng. Beijing X was unable to give a reasonable explanation for this new evidence or provide evidence to the contrary.
In March 2023, the Beijing High Court issued a civil ruling to vacate the original first and second instance judgments. The Beijing High Court's annulment ruling meant that the original first and second instance judgments found that Beijing X's separate supply of goods for a cigarette factory and a neighborhood project in Kunming was not true, and also meant that the judgments of the first and second courts that Yunnan Y should pay more than RMB900,000 to Beijing X were wrong.
Due to the fact that there were other related businesses after the signing of the Statement of Account on March 21, there were other matters that had not yet been clarified, as well as the fact that Yunnan Y Company had filed a counterclaim in the first trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court, while revoking the judgments of the original courts of the first and second trial, ruled that the case should be remanded back to the original court of the first trial for a new trial.
In this regard, Mr. Xiao Yongcheng believed that even if the court of first instance re-examined the case, Beijing X Company could not prove that it had shipped two batches of 300 cubic meters of goods to a cigarette factory's water-saving project, and could not disprove the fact that the spare parts for water-saving facilities required by a small community in Kunming had been supplied by a Shenzhen company. Xiao Yongcheng firmly believe that, because of the new evidence, a district people's court in Beijing on the case of retrial will be fair.
This case is a civil retrial case, our civil retrial is the implementation of the case review and trial supervision of the two stages. If only to the trial court "unclear facts", "the application of legal errors" as the reason for retrial, without convincing new evidence, retrial cases will be very difficult to file a review into the trial supervision and hearing stage, which is why most of the retrial cases have been dismissed by the court. are dismissed by the court.
Xiao Yongcheng lawyers believe that if you want to make a breakthrough in the retrial review stage, you should be based on the search for new evidence, looking for new evidence sufficient to overturn the original verdict and decision. To do this, first of all should carefully understand the facts of the case and the background of the whole process, pay attention to every detail, review and analyze the development of the facts of the case of the reasonableness and logic, in order to find new evidence material useful to them.
The case handled by Mr. Xiao Yongcheng is also the fourth successful case that Mr. Xiao Yongcheng has handled in recent years, which has been brought to trial by the retrial court and has been revoked by the retrial court, or has been re-sentenced.
